Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Respondent failed to pass on Input Tax Credit benefits to homebuyers, directed for further verification</h1> <h3>In the matter of: Sh. Bhanja Kishore Pradhan, Director General of Anti-Profiteering, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, New Delhi Versus M/s HCBS Promoters & Developers Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Authority found that the Respondent had benefited from Input Tax Credit (ITC) but failed to pass on the benefit to homebuyers as required by Section ... Profiteering - purchase of Flats - it is alleged that the Respondent had not passed on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) availed by way commensurate reduction in the price of the flats - contravention of section 171 of CGST Act - HELD THAT:- The Respondent has indeed benefited on account of ITC to the extent of 3.31% of his turnover during the post-GST period, i.e. from July, 2017 to December, 2018 and hence the provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 have been contravened by the Respondent since he has not passed on the above benefit to his home buyers. Further he has profiteered to the extent of Rs. 1,42,45,741/-, inclusive of GST @ as applicable, on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 1,29,68,303/-. Further, it is clear to us that the Respondent has realized additional amounts of Rs. 70,728/- from the Applicant No. 1, inclusive of GST. The Respondent has also realized an additional amount of Rs. 1,41,75,013/- (inclusive of GST as applicable) from all other home buyers than the Applicant No. 1. The total amount of profiteering on part of the Respondent works out to be Rs. 1,42,45,741/- (Rs. 1,75,013 + Rs. 70,728/-) and the same is tabulated in Annexure- 19 of the Report of the DGAP dated 02.07.2019 - the DGAP is directed to further verify the amount of ITC benefit claimed to have been passed on to his home buyers by the Respondent as per the provisions of Rule 133 (4) of the above Rules and submit his Report clearly mentioning the verified amount of benefit passed on by the Respondent to his home buyers and the balance amount still to be passed on to each of the home buyers. Issues Involved:1. Alleged profiteering by not passing on the benefit of Input Tax Credit (ITC) to homebuyers.2. Compliance with the provisions of Section 171 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.3. Determination of the quantum of ITC benefit not passed on.4. Verification of the Respondent's claim of passing on the ITC benefit.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Alleged Profiteering by Not Passing on the Benefit of ITC to Homebuyers:The Applicant No. 1 alleged that the Respondent did not pass on the benefit of ITC availed by him through a commensurate reduction in the price of flats in the 'Sports Ville' project. The DGAP investigated the complaint and found that the Respondent had indeed availed ITC but had not reduced the basic prices of the flats accordingly, thus contravening Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017.2. Compliance with the Provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017:The DGAP's investigation revealed that the ITC as a percentage of the total turnover available to the Respondent during the pre-GST period was 2.34%, and during the post-GST period, it was 5.65%. This indicated that the Respondent benefited from additional ITC to the tune of 3.31% of the turnover. The Respondent was required to pass on this benefit to the homebuyers by reducing the base price of the flats, which he failed to do.3. Determination of the Quantum of ITC Benefit Not Passed On:The DGAP quantified the amount of benefit of ITC not passed on by the Respondent as Rs. 1,42,45,741/-, which included GST on the base profiteered amount of Rs. 1,29,68,303/-. The DGAP provided a detailed breakdown of the amounts collected from the Applicant No. 1 and other homebuyers, highlighting the profiteered amount. The Respondent had realized an additional amount of Rs. 70,728/- from the Applicant No. 1 and Rs. 1,41,75,013/- from other homebuyers.4. Verification of the Respondent's Claim of Passing on the ITC Benefit:The Respondent claimed to have passed on the benefit of Rs. 1,42,56,347/- to the homebuyers. However, this claim was not verified by the DGAP. The Respondent submitted various documents, including customer-wise ledgers and letters sent to homebuyers, to support his claim. The Authority directed the DGAP to further verify the amount of ITC benefit claimed to have been passed on by the Respondent and submit a report clearly mentioning the verified amount and the balance amount still to be passed on to each homebuyer.Conclusion:The Authority concluded that the Respondent had indeed benefited from ITC to the extent of 3.31% of his turnover during the post-GST period and had not passed on this benefit to the homebuyers, thereby contravening Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017. The total amount of profiteering was determined to be Rs. 1,42,45,741/-. The DGAP was directed to verify the Respondent's claim of passing on the ITC benefit and submit a detailed report.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found